Close Combat Accuracy

[l|Bubba|l]

Agreed, deviation should be that you have to wait a short time in CQB, but longer for the fine tuning far away. Sadly, IIRC, a parabolic time-accuracy trajectory as you have described for deviation is impossible in BF2 engine.

But couldn't we just decrease the maximum deviation?

[Donatello]

im absolutely agreed with both pictures

Im afraid to look whining, but CQC in last versions is...... tiresome. Its no fun when your deviation 5 time wider than enemy bodies on range 15-20 m, and you have to count seconds.
And pleeez dont tell something like: "Go to CS Source and look for fun there"

anyway, thanks to DEVs for their work.

[abbadon101]

Would it work if you made deviation a bit slower but started it off smaller?

Making the deviation around 2/3 to 1/2 the size but making it take another second or 2 to get down to minimum.

Would this work? As it would enhance CQB but make longer engagements a slower process and mean suppression and flanking maneuvers would be more effective.


Just what I think of the whole thing

[Titan]

Sorry i dont get it. What exactly is so horrible unrealistic in CQC? MAybe i just never encountert such situations.

and for:

What really and truly needs to be done is to just take everything from CA's infantry mechanics.

There, problem solved.

i think you like CA? ... there are some good improvements thats right... but please dont take the "Soldiers on Ice" or "Rollersoldier" to Pr, or what ever it is in CA!

[CanuckCommander]

Sorry i dont get it. What exactly is so horrible unrealistic in CQC? MAybe i just never encountert such situations.

and for:


i think you like CA? ... there are some good improvements thats right... but please dont take the "Soldiers on Ice" or "Rollersoldier" to Pr, or what ever it is in CA!

The iceskating is exclusively due to the acceleration added to soldiers. However the walking speed in ca is more ideal for combat than that in pr. Speed and acceleration in movement are different.

[goguapsy]

I really think everything would be balanced if the DEVs simply MADE LMGs, HATs, AAs and other heavy weapons guys to run LESS!! So if you find a LMG on CQC it means you are late...

[gazzthompson]

So if you find a LMG on CQC it means you are late...

dont quite understand this?

[Alex6714]

i think you like CA? ... there are some good improvements thats right... but please dont take the "Soldiers on Ice" or "Rollersoldier" to Pr, or what ever it is in CA!

Yeah, thats been toned down or removed.

[eruffini]

No, the other variables in the equation are the length of the gun, the weight of the gun (if you've ever tried to actually hold a machine gun at the shoulder, steady, and sighted and walking, you'd know it's next to impossible) and perhaps most importantly the ergonomics of the gun (the M249 is a terrible weapon for instinctive fire compared to an assault rifle designed to be fired accurately without sighting in for CQC). This is why carbines are prefered to full length assault rifles or lo and behold battle rifles for CQC.

PR doesn't model any of this well, and it's very disappointing.

While carbines may be preferred in Close Quarters, the newest M249's are built to add suppressive / automatic rifle fire to supplement the squad. They are smaller, more compact, and lighter than you would think. The barrels were shortened (though come with a longer barrel in case), have a buttsock like the M4's, and have a pistol grip in front for stability.

We were issued a few of these, and they are treated like a rifle in CQC. Plus they can lay down suppressive fire. Our automatic riflemen were trained to clear rooms with these weapons, so they are practical to use.

[Arnoldio]

I really think everything would be balanced if the DEVs simply MADE LMGs, HATs, AAs and other heavy weapons guys to run LESS!! So if you find a LMG on CQC it means you are late...

dont quite understand this?

late=passed away

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

I have fired most of the weapons systems in PR with a few exceptions.
I'm talking about squad automatic weapons. IE a weapon that fires a smaller caliber round and is lighter than a general purpose machine gun. The para varient of the M249 isn't that much more difficult to wield in a FISH situation than an M16 is, and with the close proximity you don't need to look down your sites you can pretty much point shoot.
Now I do understand that a GPMG like a PKM or M240 would be absolutely horrible in close up situations. I have fired a M240 standing and unsupported, and that wasn't fun, so I can only imagine what a PKM would be like.

A M240 is not horrible in close combat, not by a long shot. I did my national military service in a swedish mechanised company as a infantry soldier with a grenaderifle, but we had two M240 gunners in each squad (no loaders) and we used those weapons in close quaters and they work. It might not be "fun" but soldiering often isn't fun.

For starters no serious person uses a M240 unsupported without a weaponsling, all our M240 gunners had the weapon in a single weapon sling so it is never unsuported. And in room clearing the gunner could chose to either raise his weapon to the shoulder and fire, something that is perfectly viable infact the weapon get easier to handle when you are firing since the recoil will takeout the weight of the weapon so the weapon actually gets lighter and easier to control when you fire it and that they are trained with the weapon for a long time and can handle the weight, or have the weapon by the hip in the weaponsling and use both of his hands and arms to aim the weapon while assaulting, this was the usual mode for assaulting in forrest, the gunner can guide his weapon by the dust cloud that the bullets does in the ground.

Also in room clearing something i think you guys have forgotten is the pure sound a M240 gives in small compartements, it is totally wicked and we always were forced to have double ear protection (http://www.ernstp.se/images/A110-010.jpg and http://www.hundforaren.se/Webshop/Image ... _pro-x.jpg) when using the weapon in doors. I think in a real situation the sound alone would force certain enemies to surrender.

[job86]

Now I do understand that a GPMG like a PKM or M240 would be absolutely horrible in close up situations. I have fired a M240 standing and unsupported, and that wasn't fun, so I can only imagine what a PKM would be like.

Are there any plans to add the M240 to PR? It would be cool to have a rare kit (like HAT) that contains a medium sized machinegun. Not sure if it has any role to fill that the M249 doesn't allready do... I would consider it as a portable machinegunsnest for squads that are defending some flag.
Maybe you could cut the sprintbar for this medium machinegun-kit into half... or maybe the gun would require 2 people operating it, one man gunning and one man feeding the ammo...
Just a thought.

[Thermis]

I'm talking about the M240 compared to everything else. Not saying its impossible to use in close combat, but M4s and M249 are easier to maneuver. Since they are short and lighter you can get them on target faster. We try not to use M240s to clear buildings if we can help it.

We've talked about adding GPMGs, and making SAW more realistic. As right now the M249 has the accuracy of a M240. IRL the M249 will hit a much wider area down range than it does right now. A M240 is really accurate at long ranges 800-1000m if you have a good gunner he'll hit targets past 1000. Where a M249 is only accurate for a point target to 600m. You will probably see GPMGs at some point but I can't tell you when.

[Outlawz7]

I heard, correct me if i'm wrong, that you can actually add collision meshes to weapons but it is just basically useless because you then cant do much in buildings because you cant lower/raise your weapon?

just out of curiosity

You might have confused this with soldier collision which does exist and work, I remember it being brought up once when there was a thread discussing the whole 'legs sticking through wall' thing.

[malv]

So are they going to improve the accuracy of the rifleman? I mean seriously, it's ridiculously difficult to hit anything moving given the shoddy BF2 engine network prediction code. Coupled with the overzealous deviation system, and the fact that even when you hit an enemy it doesn't affect their ability to fire back, combat is pretty much a coin toss. I'm getting tired of getting smoked by some hipshotting mg noob, when I have to go prone and count Mississippis just to hit anything from 20-40 feet. You devs need to account for the fact that the BF2 engine is shit, there is no sense of depth perception, and there are no cues to how accurate your shot will be. Realism does not equate to making everything unnecessarily difficult.

[Ghost_1ll1]

I use the rifleman a lot in game and the AR whenever available (usually not). And I've noticed the AR has all the advantages of Ironsighted rifle, Scoped / Sniper rifle, AND add the rate of fire of an MG.

Now I dont know if this stuff is true IRL as it may very well be, but man was i disappointed (as rifleman/SL/grenadier are my favorites) when i figured out how to properly use the AR. Just an overall superior infantry kit.

sidenote: Lets say we gave grenadier more grenades to make him feel better

[Jigsaw]

This is true, the AR is far superior to most other light infantry weapons, but then this is the same in real life. The M249 for example uses the same caliber ammunition as the M16/M4 whilst weighing only slightly more and therefore has similar recoil and a manageable firing action, meaning it can be both a powerful CQB weapon as well as having the traditional advantages of an LMG of a high ROF and good suppresion ability through the bipod stand. Ofc, realistically the M249 shouldn't be quite so accurate at extreme range but it is rarely used in PR beyond 500m.

What you have to remember is that if you are doing it right, then your squad has an AR too. You simply have to manage how you deal with the opposition when you encounter them.

Personally I do not have any problem with CQB accuracy, and can confidently win the vast majority of 1-on-1's.

[TheLean]

[MoW];1165895']A M240 is not horrible in close combat, not by a long shot. I did my national military service in a swedish mechanised company as a infantry soldier with a grenaderifle, but we had two M240 gunners in each squad (no loaders) and we used those weapons in close quaters and they work. It might not be "fun" but soldiering often isn't fun.

For starters no serious person uses a M240 unsupported without a weaponsling, all our M240 gunners had the weapon in a single weapon sling so it is never unsuported. And in room clearing the gunner could chose to either raise his weapon to the shoulder and fire, something that is perfectly viable infact the weapon get easier to handle when you are firing since the recoil will takeout the weight of the weapon so the weapon actually gets lighter and easier to control when you fire it and that they are trained with the weapon for a long time and can handle the weight, or have the weapon by the hip in the weaponsling and use both of his hands and arms to aim the weapon while assaulting, this was the usual mode for assaulting in forrest, the gunner can guide his weapon by the dust cloud that the bullets does in the ground.

Also in room clearing something i think you guys have forgotten is the pure sound a M240 gives in small compartements, it is totally wicked and we always were forced to have double ear protection (http://www.ernstp.se/images/A110-010.jpg and http://www.hundforaren.se/Webshop/Image ... _pro-x.jpg) when using the weapon in doors. I think in a real situation the sound alone would force certain enemies to surrender.

Good post. I think you got your guns mixed up though. Sweden dont use the m240, we use the ksp90 (as you know of course) which is the FN minime, the same as the american m249. So your experiences are actually even more relevant to the thread.

[Hunt3r]

I never understood why they didn't reduce deviation for cqc. The M4 for example is quite accurate without having to aim while moving. I understand the distance diviation and feel it to be decent for long range shots however they nerfed the weapons when shooting while moving(cqc). If you make the enemy fear your accuracy you will use cover. When I am shot at while moving I just zig zag or keep running to avoid being hit knowing that there is really no way for them to hit me. Make it where you want to use cover because you are afraid of being hit, not OMG I hope I can hit him in cqc like on mutrah.

The other night I was on Mutrah squad leading in the docks buildings and was told over voip there was a tango 10 feet beind me. I turned to engage and I HAD the drop on him. I missed the first half of my shots from 3 feet away because deviation is nerfed for close range.

Dont' get me wrong I DO BELIEVE in deviation. But the weapons are not accuratley portrayed.

Well a cone of fire has to be linearly increasing with distance with the BF2 engine, and most engines out there, so there really isn't much that can be done regarding that.

Something to get the CQC to work more fluidly and realistically would be nice.